To what extent is competition between social groups a necessary condition for inter-group discrimination?

Authors Avatar

Social Psychology                        

To what extent is competition between social groups a necessary condition for     inter-group discrimination?

Discrimination is a highly contentious issue in our contemporary society, and is still not a thoroughly understood phenomenon, despite extensive and illuminating psychological research. The question acknowledges that there is a place for competition in the creation of inter-group discrimination, in some instances leading to hostility and aggressive behaviours, but how much is competition responsible for such social phenomena? Furthermore, surely there are other factors, which also act as a catalyst for discrimination. However, what does ‘competition’ actually refer to? Is it the dispute over real resources, as Sherif (1953) argues, or more abstract notions such as honour, respect and the like. Is competition a constantly required variable or does to shift to more negative happenings? I intend to try and answer these ambiguities the question offers, mainly through the research and theories of Tajfel and Sherif, but will conclude that competition is indeed a highly imperative condition for inter-group discrimination, varying in degrees in concordance with the social and historical background of a social group.  

First then, we come to the issue of whether competition is a required condition for inter-group discrimination or not. Initially we shall look at the theory that argues competition is required, followed by a theory, which rejects competition as a necessary requirement for inter-group discrimination.

Sherif and Sherif (1953) proposed a theory which hypothesised that inter-group discrimination and conflict was related to the social situation in terms of the goals a group seeked to achieve and the desires of other groups surrounding them. They reacted against the Frankfurt notion of prejudice being based on individual psychological level, meaning the authoritarian personality (Adorno, 1950), but argued that discrimination is a product of social interactions between groups, not the individual’s venting repressed aggression accumulated in childhood,

‘Inter-group conflict…[is] not primarily a result of neurotic tendencies on the part of the individuals, but occur under specified conditions when the individuals involved are normal, healthy and well adjusted.’ 

(Sherif, M. 1966. P.90)

 

The basic procedure of the series of experiments, were of a naturalistic method. Two groups of young, white, and middleclass boys were placed in a campsite under the impression they were on a holiday of some sort. During the first week, the two groups were unaware that they were residing within the same forest as each other, or that there was even another group. Group solidarity was created through various tasks such as putting up a tent, carrying a canoe and so forth, via which group norms came to exist. The second phase of the procedure was to make the two groups aware of each other. Soon after, the two groups were placed in conflict with each other. Sherif argued that competition was necessary for inter-group discrimination to occur, so imposed a ‘zero-sum goal’ of trophies, knives and medals, which, of course, only one group could achieve. In brief, there was a rapid deterioration in behaviour in the boys, which soon turned to intense conflict, but I shall return to phase two momentarily. Finally, in order to calm the somewhat hostile situation, Sherif instigated a ‘super ordinate goal’; a goal, which both the groups desire to achieve, yet cannot do so without the assistance of the other group. Examples include the water supply breaking down (caused by a stooge park official placing a sandbag in it), but a single group of boys could not fix this problem alone, thus leading to a joint group effort to remedy the problem. By the end of the third stage, all the boys were friends, agreeing to share buses (rather than taking separate; one for each group) and so forth. So, ‘Realistic Group Conflict Theory’ is so named, since the groups were competing over actual resources, a condition, which Sherif viewed as essential.

Join now!

In relation to the question, it is the second phase, which is of most interest. Sherif argues that competition over real resources is necessary condition for inter-group conflict. Yet, the actual behaviours of the children in response to the imposed zero-sum goal are highly informative. By the end of phase one, general norms had been established amongst the two groups. The first, ‘the Rattlers’ had norms of ‘toughness’, ‘cursing’ and ‘bravery’. They appeared to have a strong group identity, expressed through them naming themselves, and making T-shirts with their group name and emblems on them. The second group, in ...

This is a preview of the whole essay